|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On January 19 2017 06:34 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 06:24 RvB wrote:On January 19 2017 05:55 LegalLord wrote:On January 19 2017 05:46 RvB wrote:On January 19 2017 05:29 LegalLord wrote:On January 19 2017 05:17 RvB wrote:On January 19 2017 04:33 bardtown wrote:On January 19 2017 04:14 Makro wrote: with the brexit, medias are doing a good thing at hammering the head of the people that leaving the EU would be the biggest catastrophy ever and will turn the country into dust
that's why many europeans leaders are actively trying to resolve the brexit issue harshly, it's good publicity
that's the main reason france leaving the EU won't happen And what if the UK comes out the other side stronger than ever? On January 19 2017 04:33 RvB wrote: I've been hearing that the EU will collapse since the eurocrisis. THat's 7 years ago. The EU isn't going anywhere. THe PVV is no danger, M5S is supposedly eurosceptic but wanted to join the liberal fraction in the European parliament and Greece doesn't even want to leave after all the shit they've been through. France is a little bit of a toss up but Le Pen isn't going to win.
Meanwhile Trump giving Europe the cold shoulder only strengthens the case for Federalists since there's no viable alternative left except the EU if the US isn't willing.
Yes the EU has been through a lot of crises with the credit crisis, the euro crisis, the refugee crisis, Brexit and Russian aggression but we've actually been climbing out of that hole for a while now. Growth and inflation is picking up and the refugee flow has greatly receded. Right. Because nothing has changed since 7 years ago, has it? I mean, it's not like one of the biggest members has left. Not like Italian banks are on the brink of collapse and Greece is no better than before. Not like millions of migrants have come to the continent against the will of most people. Also, did you notice that Farage did not (and never would be able to) win a general election in the UK? Even without a populist leader being elected, there is only so long that you can deny your peoples the votes that they want. And then, who knows? Farage wouldn't win an election but the Tories have had a strong anti EU fraction for decades and Labour had a Eurosceptic leader this time around. Farage didn't make Brexit happen by himself. Yes Britain leaving sucks but they weren't one of the founding members and they haven't been one of the core members for a while now. Italian banks aren't on the brink of collapse. They're stuck with lots of non performing loans and their equity buffers are too low. Equity buffers are too low due to increased regulation though and they've been in years. Yes they require more equity but no they're not close to bankruptcy like in the credit crisis. Migrants can cause more trouble (who knows really) but the biggest flows have already stopped. What will happen when Brexit will go fine? Who knows right? Article 50 still hasn't been triggered so we'll see. Whatever happens it'll take years before Brexit has truely happpened. On January 19 2017 04:41 LegalLord wrote:On January 19 2017 04:33 RvB wrote: I've been hearing that the EU will collapse since the eurocrisis. THat's 7 years ago. The EU isn't going anywhere. THe PVV is no danger, M5S is supposedly eurosceptic but wanted to join the liberal fraction in the European parliament and Greece doesn't even want to leave after all the shit they've been through. France is a little bit of a toss up but Le Pen isn't going to win.
Meanwhile Trump giving Europe the cold shoulder only strengthens the case for Federalists since there's no viable alternative left except the EU if the US isn't willing.
Yes the EU has been through a lot of crises with the credit crisis, the euro crisis, the refugee crisis, Brexit and Russian aggression but we've actually been climbing out of that hole for a while now. Growth and inflation is picking up and the refugee flow has greatly receded. Kwark was right, in a way, when he said, "if you predict economic crisis you will eventually be right." So that much is true. The biggest thing now, though, is that the EU's crisis is buried more so than resolved (Greece will default again, for sure) and we have some very concrete reasons to think this is only going to get worse. Britain for example already voted to leave; they might not have too many good options outside the EU but they did make the choice in the referendum and it very well may happen. The US basically says that the EU is on its own, which should be further reason to be concerned. The Eurosceptics just keep getting stronger and stronger as we go forward. There is no real sign of this EU crisis getting less severe; it keeps going from crisis-point to crisis-point (Greece, refugees, Brexit, Trump) and I just don't see any resolution on the horizon. While five years ago I would have probably said an EU breakup is unlikely and they will work it all out eventually, at this point I would have to classify it as "more likely than not." Greece will likely need more debt relief but I doubt they'll go in an actual default. Greece isn't really going to take the rest of the eurozone with it anymore anyway. I don't see why the US saying the EU is on its own will make it break up. Please clarify. Brexit isn't really a EU crisis though, it's more of an internal matter of the UK and Trump is really no crisis for the EU at all. We'll be on less friendly terms with the US and they might be a competitor but so what? There are alternatives if the US doesn't want to cooperate and the EU has plenty of economic might of its own. Greece continues to be an economy with no hope for recovery faced with creditors who categorically refuse debt forgiveness. A default would likely lead the way to a larger scale financial crisis. Trump and the US, that just helps to undermine any form of ideological support for a union. He's basically saying, "want to leave? We're cool with that, go for it. What alternative for the US would you be likely to stake the future of Europe on? China, the new staunch defender of globalism, as the leader of the free world? Why would a Greek default lead to a wider financial crisis? Nobody in the financial sector has exposure to Greece anymore and the bailout money not coming back isn't going to make any country go bankrupt. You're overestimating Trumps influence. He's massively disliked in Europe. I remember a poll in NL where 90% thought negatively of him.Trump being negative about the EU won't really matter at all. There's no real alternative for the US as an ally tbh (this goes both ways, the US has no real alternative to the EU). Economically though there are plenty of partners like China, India, other developed countries etc. "Nobody in the financial sector" - going to have to ask for clarification. Greece owes people money, and that money not being repaid looks like something of a loss. And depending on how that's resolved, it could lead to further money troubles. Trump being disliked, no shit. I can't recall "Europe" being fond of Republicans. But if the most important country to the "liberal order" that makes up part of the ideological basis for the EU is not really on board, then that severely undermines any ideological message of unity. The US doesn't need the EU as a bloc - it can certainly pick and choose its favorites for an alliance. I can't agree that they have no other possible partners, considering that they are one other ocean away from plenty of potentially US-sympathetic nations. Economically, though, do you see a deepening of ties with China as the US pulls away being the arrangement that saves the EU? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33407742As you can see most of the Greek debt is held by public institutions like the ESFS, IMF, ECB. The first Greek crisis was dangerous because multiple European banks were exposed to Greek debt. THat suddenly all souring can cause a financial crisis (I don't think it would've though). Now the exposure is quite small. While a default will still be pretty painful a financial crisis doesnt seem very likely. An actual haircut seems more likely than a default since if Greece does default a haircut will follow as well. But don't you see that nobody gives a damn about what Trump thinks over here? Nobody is going to think worse of the EU because Trump doesn't like it. They'll either shrug or thinks he's an idiot. None of those allies have the same history, cooperation, trust and size as the EU does. There are countries like Australia and New Zealand which are very close but don't have the size, not to mention that they're already allies. So no there's not really an equal partner as a substitution for the EU. Economically deepening ties with China, which has an economy as big as the US, is definitely a worthy option (although I don't think anything can actually replace the US in this regard). Then there are also other developed nations like Australia and Japan. There are developing nations like Brazil, Mexico and Argentina etc. Especially on the economic front there are a lot of alternatives. So the debt is basically passed around and someone else will pay the price. Yes, it's clear that you don't think people will take Trump seriously and think he's a buffoon. But without the US backing the EU, what good is it? The US will pursue a policy that does not necessarily favor a bloc rather than separate nation-states. Why does the US need to ally with the bloc rather than individual nations? Are they going to go to the back of the queue on the trade deals and alliances because the US wants to negotiate with blocs instead? No? Then the US doesn't necessarily need the EU to stay together to have alliances within it. https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0003.htmlThat's a lot of trade to replace. And a lot of trading infrastructure to replace too, if you want to go for China instead for that matter. But I hear China is having trouble selling enough cargo ships to keep their shipyards working, so maybe it will all work out after all. Walk us through this hypothetical, how does Trump get his party to support the biggest policy shift in 70 years for no apparent benefit? And why would this threat of 'cut your foot or I'll cut a finger from both of us' work leverage wise? I'm not aware of any EU member that trades more with the US than with the rest of the EU.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On January 19 2017 10:55 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 06:34 LegalLord wrote:On January 19 2017 06:24 RvB wrote:On January 19 2017 05:55 LegalLord wrote:On January 19 2017 05:46 RvB wrote:On January 19 2017 05:29 LegalLord wrote:On January 19 2017 05:17 RvB wrote:On January 19 2017 04:33 bardtown wrote:On January 19 2017 04:14 Makro wrote: with the brexit, medias are doing a good thing at hammering the head of the people that leaving the EU would be the biggest catastrophy ever and will turn the country into dust
that's why many europeans leaders are actively trying to resolve the brexit issue harshly, it's good publicity
that's the main reason france leaving the EU won't happen And what if the UK comes out the other side stronger than ever? On January 19 2017 04:33 RvB wrote: I've been hearing that the EU will collapse since the eurocrisis. THat's 7 years ago. The EU isn't going anywhere. THe PVV is no danger, M5S is supposedly eurosceptic but wanted to join the liberal fraction in the European parliament and Greece doesn't even want to leave after all the shit they've been through. France is a little bit of a toss up but Le Pen isn't going to win.
Meanwhile Trump giving Europe the cold shoulder only strengthens the case for Federalists since there's no viable alternative left except the EU if the US isn't willing.
Yes the EU has been through a lot of crises with the credit crisis, the euro crisis, the refugee crisis, Brexit and Russian aggression but we've actually been climbing out of that hole for a while now. Growth and inflation is picking up and the refugee flow has greatly receded. Right. Because nothing has changed since 7 years ago, has it? I mean, it's not like one of the biggest members has left. Not like Italian banks are on the brink of collapse and Greece is no better than before. Not like millions of migrants have come to the continent against the will of most people. Also, did you notice that Farage did not (and never would be able to) win a general election in the UK? Even without a populist leader being elected, there is only so long that you can deny your peoples the votes that they want. And then, who knows? Farage wouldn't win an election but the Tories have had a strong anti EU fraction for decades and Labour had a Eurosceptic leader this time around. Farage didn't make Brexit happen by himself. Yes Britain leaving sucks but they weren't one of the founding members and they haven't been one of the core members for a while now. Italian banks aren't on the brink of collapse. They're stuck with lots of non performing loans and their equity buffers are too low. Equity buffers are too low due to increased regulation though and they've been in years. Yes they require more equity but no they're not close to bankruptcy like in the credit crisis. Migrants can cause more trouble (who knows really) but the biggest flows have already stopped. What will happen when Brexit will go fine? Who knows right? Article 50 still hasn't been triggered so we'll see. Whatever happens it'll take years before Brexit has truely happpened. On January 19 2017 04:41 LegalLord wrote:On January 19 2017 04:33 RvB wrote: I've been hearing that the EU will collapse since the eurocrisis. THat's 7 years ago. The EU isn't going anywhere. THe PVV is no danger, M5S is supposedly eurosceptic but wanted to join the liberal fraction in the European parliament and Greece doesn't even want to leave after all the shit they've been through. France is a little bit of a toss up but Le Pen isn't going to win.
Meanwhile Trump giving Europe the cold shoulder only strengthens the case for Federalists since there's no viable alternative left except the EU if the US isn't willing.
Yes the EU has been through a lot of crises with the credit crisis, the euro crisis, the refugee crisis, Brexit and Russian aggression but we've actually been climbing out of that hole for a while now. Growth and inflation is picking up and the refugee flow has greatly receded. Kwark was right, in a way, when he said, "if you predict economic crisis you will eventually be right." So that much is true. The biggest thing now, though, is that the EU's crisis is buried more so than resolved (Greece will default again, for sure) and we have some very concrete reasons to think this is only going to get worse. Britain for example already voted to leave; they might not have too many good options outside the EU but they did make the choice in the referendum and it very well may happen. The US basically says that the EU is on its own, which should be further reason to be concerned. The Eurosceptics just keep getting stronger and stronger as we go forward. There is no real sign of this EU crisis getting less severe; it keeps going from crisis-point to crisis-point (Greece, refugees, Brexit, Trump) and I just don't see any resolution on the horizon. While five years ago I would have probably said an EU breakup is unlikely and they will work it all out eventually, at this point I would have to classify it as "more likely than not." Greece will likely need more debt relief but I doubt they'll go in an actual default. Greece isn't really going to take the rest of the eurozone with it anymore anyway. I don't see why the US saying the EU is on its own will make it break up. Please clarify. Brexit isn't really a EU crisis though, it's more of an internal matter of the UK and Trump is really no crisis for the EU at all. We'll be on less friendly terms with the US and they might be a competitor but so what? There are alternatives if the US doesn't want to cooperate and the EU has plenty of economic might of its own. Greece continues to be an economy with no hope for recovery faced with creditors who categorically refuse debt forgiveness. A default would likely lead the way to a larger scale financial crisis. Trump and the US, that just helps to undermine any form of ideological support for a union. He's basically saying, "want to leave? We're cool with that, go for it. What alternative for the US would you be likely to stake the future of Europe on? China, the new staunch defender of globalism, as the leader of the free world? Why would a Greek default lead to a wider financial crisis? Nobody in the financial sector has exposure to Greece anymore and the bailout money not coming back isn't going to make any country go bankrupt. You're overestimating Trumps influence. He's massively disliked in Europe. I remember a poll in NL where 90% thought negatively of him.Trump being negative about the EU won't really matter at all. There's no real alternative for the US as an ally tbh (this goes both ways, the US has no real alternative to the EU). Economically though there are plenty of partners like China, India, other developed countries etc. "Nobody in the financial sector" - going to have to ask for clarification. Greece owes people money, and that money not being repaid looks like something of a loss. And depending on how that's resolved, it could lead to further money troubles. Trump being disliked, no shit. I can't recall "Europe" being fond of Republicans. But if the most important country to the "liberal order" that makes up part of the ideological basis for the EU is not really on board, then that severely undermines any ideological message of unity. The US doesn't need the EU as a bloc - it can certainly pick and choose its favorites for an alliance. I can't agree that they have no other possible partners, considering that they are one other ocean away from plenty of potentially US-sympathetic nations. Economically, though, do you see a deepening of ties with China as the US pulls away being the arrangement that saves the EU? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33407742As you can see most of the Greek debt is held by public institutions like the ESFS, IMF, ECB. The first Greek crisis was dangerous because multiple European banks were exposed to Greek debt. THat suddenly all souring can cause a financial crisis (I don't think it would've though). Now the exposure is quite small. While a default will still be pretty painful a financial crisis doesnt seem very likely. An actual haircut seems more likely than a default since if Greece does default a haircut will follow as well. But don't you see that nobody gives a damn about what Trump thinks over here? Nobody is going to think worse of the EU because Trump doesn't like it. They'll either shrug or thinks he's an idiot. None of those allies have the same history, cooperation, trust and size as the EU does. There are countries like Australia and New Zealand which are very close but don't have the size, not to mention that they're already allies. So no there's not really an equal partner as a substitution for the EU. Economically deepening ties with China, which has an economy as big as the US, is definitely a worthy option (although I don't think anything can actually replace the US in this regard). Then there are also other developed nations like Australia and Japan. There are developing nations like Brazil, Mexico and Argentina etc. Especially on the economic front there are a lot of alternatives. So the debt is basically passed around and someone else will pay the price. Yes, it's clear that you don't think people will take Trump seriously and think he's a buffoon. But without the US backing the EU, what good is it? The US will pursue a policy that does not necessarily favor a bloc rather than separate nation-states. Why does the US need to ally with the bloc rather than individual nations? Are they going to go to the back of the queue on the trade deals and alliances because the US wants to negotiate with blocs instead? No? Then the US doesn't necessarily need the EU to stay together to have alliances within it. https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0003.htmlThat's a lot of trade to replace. And a lot of trading infrastructure to replace too, if you want to go for China instead for that matter. But I hear China is having trouble selling enough cargo ships to keep their shipyards working, so maybe it will all work out after all. Walk us through this hypothetical, how does Trump get his party to support the biggest policy shift in 70 years for no apparent benefit? And why would this threat of 'cut your foot or I'll cut a finger from both of us' work leverage wise? I'm not aware of any EU member that trades more with the US than with the rest of the EU. This is the hypothetical scenario.
US side: really not that complicated. The president gets a lot of control over the policies the country has, and chooses his cabinet. He will simply signal that the US doesn't really have a preference for keeping the EU together, that it's not necessarily looking to make agreements with the whole bloc, and that they are still the closest of butt buddies with Britain. The protectionist wave in the US is ever growing, so it's only a gradual shift inward. Also, tariffs for foreigners.
Britain leaves in a hard Brexit. Faced with the reality that the "freedom of movement" is non-negotiable, they leave. It will hurt, but pragmatism will beat out vengeance and they will come up with an amicable transition that more or less lets things proceed as normal.
The next French leadership will, in a classic French manner, to their own way. No idea what that will ultimately entail but for all intents and purposes they won't be committed to a central vision of a united Europe. They will just sort of exist there.
So with the effective withdrawal of two major powers, it will start to become a particularly German-centric alliance and the Germans will start to push for an ever-closer union as usual. The puppies and some others will gush over this event, while others who simply don't want an ever-closer union will slowly pull away. The union will be increasingly convergent upon a much more core set of ideals that fewer countries share, and more countries will be disinclined to stay.
Meanwhile, Trump gets serious about his "pay up 2 percent or we don't got your back" threat. He ultimately manages to bully countries into paying up, but not without driving up expenses in an already precarious budget situation and giving rise to a bigger German role. That, or knowing that the US does not necessarily got their back, they will reconsider their alliances to mitigate the threat of being attacked. Or both. But again, not everyone would be happy about trading America for Germany.
Then we get Greece. It defaults again and at this point people are sick of Greece's shit. They let it default and kick it out of the Euro. It's economically bad, but Greece is small and it won't be deadly. But the other weak economies, including Spain, Portugal, and Italy, take a turn for the worse and eventually also choose to leave the Euro. They keep a connection to the EU, but a decidedly smaller one.
Meanwhile, the nations that haven't joined the EU that were considering it start to see that it's not going that great, so they have second thoughts. The poor performers in the EU also look for ways out; they don't benefit on the aggregate and they are better off elsewhere.
The result? A decidedly smaller and German-centric core union with a fair number of friendlies in the periphery. I wouldn't call it a doomsday scenario but it wouldn't look like the union spanning the entirety of Europe that is the goal right now.
|
For Spain, Rajoy is in charge for the next 4 years. He's pro-Europe and all happy about austerity. He's a blithering idiot, but he won't cause trouble in the EU. So other than Greece, only Italy may cause trouble if the anti-EU cinque stelle win the elections, assuming there will actually be elections.
I'm not sure I understand Italy in any case; looking at Spain, half the government projects are partially funded by the EU, and people who dislike the national government are generally still pro-EU. Greece is in a similar, but even worse position. Presumably Portugal as well, although I don't really know much about it. So either Italy is fundamentally different from its southern neighbours, or cinque stelle is popular for other reasons than its anti-EU points.
That said, the Euro is not necessarily popular, and there's a lot of people who think Spain would be better if it had the peseta back.
|
So first reaction from Germany is from Gabriel (vice-chancellor who's very well known for being a Trump critic and has been quite vocal about focusing more on China and Asia before, just as an aside):
Germany will need a new economic strategy geared toward Asia should the new U.S. administration start a trade war with China, Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel said on Friday, warning against protectionism hours after President Donald Trump was sworn in.
"I think we have to prepare for a rough ride," Gabriel said in an interview with the public broadcaster ZDF, in the first official German reaction to Trump's inauguration. He added that Trump's election was the result of "a bad radicalization".
The leader of the left-leaning Social Democrats (SPD), coalition partners of Chancellor Angela Merkel's ruling conservatives, dismissed suggestions that Trump may not pursue some controversial promises, such as imposing high tariffs on cars imported from Mexico.
"He means it extremely seriously," said Gabriel. "What we heard today were high nationalistic tones."
He added that all that was missing from Trump's speech was comparing parliament to a "Quasselbude" or "talking shop," a term used by Hitler before he took power to discredit the parliamentary democracy of the Weimar Republic in the 1920s.
Gabriel said the European Union and Germany must stand together "to defend our interests" and to prevent such nationalistic fervor from gripping the continent.
[...]
source: www.reuters.com
|
for some news on whats going on here: - after wining the parliamentary elections and installing a new government, our left(socialist, democrat) tried to pass an emergency ordinance(bypassing the parliament) seeking to modify the penal code and pardon some inmates(they estimated ~2.500) claiming prison overcrowding. - the penal code modifications were of such a nature that we would see a ~30% of all the dossiers investigated by our anti-corruption agency(DNA) disappear; the actions of those being investigated in there would no longer be considered acts of corruption. incidentally(not really) the leader of our left would fall into that category of pardoned by proxy people(he has a dossier on election fraud and one for abuse of power). - the people rioted in the streets(the most were in the capital ~3000 with some hundreds in other 3-4 cities), the president crashed the government session scolding those present and allegedly made a deal/reached a consensus with our PM in that nothing of such nature will pass without proper parliamentary procedures/debates. - our justice minister did not withdrew those ordinances as of now claiming he needs/awaits further instructions from the PM(our PM was shaking Trump hand at the inauguration) so the issue is half in the air.
on other matter: - based on evidence provided by a fugitive from justice(Sebastian Ghita; he was allegedly helped by the police to escape), the first deputy director of our intelligence services(SRI) Florian Coldea was dismissed from his post. - the same Sebastian Ghita is leveling charges against Laura Codruța Kövesi, our anti corruption agency(DNA) chief prosecutor; she denied everything and is fine for now(pending future developments). - apart from some financial reasons, both of them(Coldea+Kövesi) were accused of being officers in a foreign intelligence service(it is rumored to be CIA) + Show Spoiler +
historically, our left tried to get control over the judiciary but failed to do so in a number of occasions; they often claim that the left is being preferentially targeted for prosecution in corruption cases(in some ways it is true).
Edit: (i believe that our left is pretty pro-chinese so if they'll manage to get it their way, we will see a shift into that direction with silk roads/more chinese investments and what not).
|
Thanks for your report.
Some news from France: yesterday, it was the first round of the primary of the PS and its allies. In medias, this primary was largely analyzed as “a primary of the losers” since its winner systematically polls fifth for the presidential, scoring between 6 and 10% depending on who is tested. The PS is stuck between Mélenchon (a former member of the left-wing of the PS, who left the party in 2008 but sticked to socialist fundamentals) and Macron (a former minister of Hollande who embodies the complete transformation into social-liberalism). Their scores in polls are respectively 13-15% and ~17-21%. Both of them refused to participate in this primary, claiming it would be incoherent.
Anyway, after 3 rather dull TV debates, ~1.6 million people [there are already controversies about the lack of detailed data, contrary to what was promised] came to vote yesterday (down from 2.7 million in 2011, and far from the 4.4 millions who came for the UMP-LR primary in November). The first three are:
Benoît Hamon (left-wing of the PS, former minister who left the government in 2014): 36.5% Manuel Valls (right of the PS, former Prime minister until the end of 2016): 31.1% Arnaud Montebourg (left-wing of the PS, former minister who left the government in 2014): 17.5%
The other candidates scored less than 7%; three of them were fairly irrelevant satellites who were here simply because the PS needed not to appear alone/isolated.
Ironically, for the first time the left wing of the PS might actually win... when the party is almost dying. Montebourg (who's again the third man, like in 2011, with a very similar score lol) now supports Hamon, which makes him the favorite... but it should be close. Hamon campaigned on the universal income, saying he eventually wants to reach a 750€ universal income. But he never managed to say how he's going to find 450 billions € per year (i.e. more than the current budget of the State) to finance that, so Valls will heavily fire at him fo being “unrealistic” and so on. Their views are opposed on a lot of domains, so it makes very little sense for the loser to support the winner in a sincere way... but it's the rule of the primary.
A TV debate is scheduled in 2 days, before the secound round Sunday.
|
|
|
Yeah? Its a hardcore leftist and green agenda that is just that... well, overcoming/abolishing capitalism is somehow missing (at least in your quote).
Not that i agree with most of this, but its not THAT outthere when i compare it to the hardcore leftists that i talk/discuss quiet often with.
|
Universal basic income: A serious policy. I beleive Scotland is considering it and Finland is currently undergoing it. I disagree with it, but I don't see anything outrageous in and of itself.
Tax on robots: More information needed. Is there some sort of loophole which means that robots are taxed less than other machinery?
Progressive taxation of wealth: Aren't most countries already under a progressive taxation of income? More information needed.
Reduction of tax loopholes: No matter what part of the political sprectrum you may be from, surely we can agree that this is a positive policy.
32-hour working week: Seems to be a distinctively French context. More information needed.
Legalization of marijuana: Several US states as well as several European countires have legalized marijuana. I see no problem here.
National conference on “environmental democracy”: Not sure what this means.
50% renewable energy by 2025: This is a high target. UK for instance sets 15% by 2020 and Germany 50% by 2030. Are you laughing at this?
Differentiated VAT for the “most virtuous products”: Not sure what this means. Translation error?
Ban on pesticides: Sounds reasonable, but would most likely be unviable. Are you laughing at this?
Better repayments for dental care: Appears to be a distinctively French context.
A “Sixth Republic”. Transformation of the Senate into “college of territories”: Not sure what this means. I think it mean suggesting a decentralisation of power, I which case I don't see anything laughable about this.
The right of foreigners to vote in local elections: In UK, commonwealth citizens can also vote in local elections.
“Humanitarian visa” and redo of France a land of asylum: Not sure what this means. Bad grammar. I am guessing you google translated this.
Consideration of the none of the above vote. If the none of the above vote is a majority vote, the election must be postponed: Not sure what this means.
Media antitrust law: How is this laughable?
Labor law repeal to provide additional protection to employees: Need french context.
Help facilitate the takeover of SCOP companies by employees: No idea what an SCOP is.
Recognize burn-out as an occupational disease: Strange policy to have as surely such decisions cn only be made by a medical board.
What part do you find humorous? At face value, individually there isn't anything outrageous there, or are otherwise more information is needed as it appears to have translation errors or otherwise more French context is needed..
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
I would say what I find more notable is what it doesn't include than what it does. This list of platform positions seems to hilariously miss the point of what people actually care about.
|
On January 24 2017 00:11 LegalLord wrote: I would say what I find more notable is what it doesn't include than what it does. This list of platform positions seems to hilariously miss the point of what people actually care about. What, in your opinion, do French people actually care about?
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On January 24 2017 00:12 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 00:11 LegalLord wrote: I would say what I find more notable is what it doesn't include than what it does. This list of platform positions seems to hilariously miss the point of what people actually care about. What, in your opinion, do French people actually care about? Very vague question since there's a lot of them.
My point, though, is that this platform had the willingness to explicate its thoughts about some of the very micro-issues like "dental care" (I remember the last time I voted for someone based on their opinion on dental care...) yet they completely fail to touch upon many of the most important issues - the economy as a whole, the EU (whether or not people like it, it's almost ubiquitous that Brexit and Trump are pretty big deals here), FP/military (Trump and his NATO remarks are important here), and so on.
Also, "vote for none of the above" sounds hilarious. Yeah, let's let our government stall for a while and have another campaign season because people don't really like the candidates. Sounds like a real pragmatic way to get good candidates instead of endless deadlock.
I mean, the stuff being proposed is pretty stupid, but it definitely is quite notable that the people don't seem to focus on macro-issues that one might think people actually care about.
|
On January 24 2017 00:24 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 00:12 Acrofales wrote:On January 24 2017 00:11 LegalLord wrote: I would say what I find more notable is what it doesn't include than what it does. This list of platform positions seems to hilariously miss the point of what people actually care about. What, in your opinion, do French people actually care about? Very vague question since there's a lot of them. My point, though, is that this platform had the willingness to explicate its thoughts about some of the very micro-issues like "dental care" (I remember the last time I voted for someone based on their opinion on dental care...) yet they completely fail to touch upon many of the most important issues - the economy as a whole, the EU (whether or not people like it, it's almost ubiquitous that Brexit and Trump are pretty big deals here), FP/military (Trump and his NATO remarks are important here), and so on. Also, "vote for none of the above" sounds hilarious. Yeah, let's let our government stall for a while and have another campaign season because people don't really like the candidates. Sounds like a real pragmatic way to get good candidates instead of endless deadlock. I mean, the stuff being proposed is pretty stupid, but it definitely is quite notable that the people don't seem to focus on macro-issues that one might think people actually care about. I'd say Universal Basic Income and a workweek reduction seem like pretty clear indications of where he wants to go economically. Clearly dental coverage in the insurance program is a minor point that must have come up in the debates, because googling I don't actually find his full platform, and just what media platforms cobbled together from the debate points.
As for the EU, pretty sure the PS is pro-EU, and doing whatever to hold it together. But I'm sure a French guy here will be able to respond better. The points listed are those where Valls and Hamon differ, surely not the full policy for his presidential campaign.
As for voting "none of the above". It sounds like making a blank/invalid vote an official thing, which I can only encourage. How many people would have preferred to vote "fuck you, redo the elections" in the US elections, rather than being forced to vote for Trump/Hillary?
E: I did find his program. It's here: https://www.benoithamon2017.fr/ Plenty more than in the talking points. For instance, here's his stance on Europe (pro, as expected): https://www.benoithamon2017.fr/thematique/pour-une-france-independante-et-protectrice/#europe albeit there's a load of hot air on that page, lol.
|
There is nothing radical or hardcore in Hamon's program, he merely represents the left-wing of what's left of social democracy in the PS. He criticized Hollande's austerity, left the government in 2014 but didn't join the left-wing opposition like Mélenchon.
His environmental goals are far more modest than the ones of the ecologist candidate, or Mélenchon's (ecosocialist).
Some of Hamon's platform is simply promises that Hollande made, and never fulfilled.
Hamon dropped the 32 hours; sadly, he replaced it with the universal income nonsense. The “tax on robots” is similar nonsense and comes from the same ideology: the idea that we are at the dawn of “end of work”. Fortunately, the rest of the radical left rightfully analyzed this as an exaggeration (technological progress destroying some jobs is really nothing new, it's the entire history of capitalism...) and/or a neoliberal Trojan Horse to terminate our current social systems.
But this universal income gadget really worked for him; it attracted a lot of young voters, and made its political identity (this was one of the most debated measures in the TV debates).
|
But this also means that, to achieve these goals, May is really going to pursue the ultra-Atlanticist fantasy that UKIP has been pleading for all these years: instead of a European-oriented British capitalism, a “global” state linked to Washington and Europe through bilateral free trade deals, and trying to foster former colonies as export markets. This suits a wing of cowboy capitalists, spivs, and petty-bourgeois traders, anxious to be relieved of the constraints of the EU’s ordoliberal “social model.”
Instead of the single market, therefore, Britain will seek a separate free-trade deal with Europe, allowing it to trade more freely globally. And in the event that it can’t get good terms, Chancellor Philip Hammond promises to use massive tax reductions for corporations to lure investors, prompting German scowls. Donald Trump, using his position already to create leverage for the Brexit right, has promised that Britain can have a “quick” free trade deal with the United States once Brexit is complete. This is probably more of “the old Trump bullshit,” since it would take at least a few years to get such a deal in place, but it has been welcomed by May as a conversation-changer.
It is possible that May’s current position is posturing, an attempt to drive a hard bargain. Asked less than six months ago, I would have wagered that May has no interest in leaving the single market. But this may have been to give her too much credit as a strategist, and the squeals of business and the business press suggest that they’re taking her plans very seriously. The Financial Times laments that May is giving up on “one of Margaret Thatcher’s greatest legacies.” Former Liberal leader Nick Clegg echoes this sentiment: “Theresa May has finally turned her back on Margaret Thatcher’s greatest economic achievement, the world’s largest borderless single market.”
There are various reasons why this is bad capitalism. In the first instance, as Oxford academic Ngaire Woods pointed out prior to the Brexit vote, if you aren’t part of the single market, then you can’t offer access to that market as a perk of trading with you. You will get worse terms in any trade deal you strike, because you have a smaller market, and the larger economies you’re trading with will dictate the rules. When Trump talks about a “fair” trade deal, this artist-of-the-deal can be assumed to know what leverage he will have.
The government has attempted to talk up post-Brexit trade deals, claiming a total of £16 billion in trade deals made since the vote: a figure that turned out to be concocted from deals unveiled in previous years. Investors, who were interested in Britain in part because its access to European markets, have been reconsidering their investments. Those who have invested have been subject to extraordinary serenading and special offers on the part of the government. The Telegraph, which can always be relied on to deliver the “good news” about Brexit, can at best offer the decidedly unenthusiastic opinion of someone at the Fitch ratings agency claiming that Brexit will not be “the bogeyman that causes everything to fall over” and “ultimately companies will cope.”
British capitalism is already in a bad way. With low domestic demand caused by wage contraction and spending cuts, the Bank of England and the chancellor’s office has for some time talked of an “export-led recovery.” This was part of an austerian answer to Britain’s economic malaise: suppress wages and cut corporate taxes to stimulate investment, reduce debt, and export goods. This proved unavailing. It was hoped that the plummeting value of the pound, post-Brexit, would finally stimulate more exports. The large British trade deficit begged to differ with such sunny prospects.
Labor productivity remains very low. It was never Britain’s strong point and, while it has recovered to levels last seen prior to the credit crunch, it remains well behind that of other powerful economies and will not return to its long-term trend before 2020.
Hammond, appointed after the Brexit vote, claims that he is prepared to raise public investment in order to raise productivity. In this respect, he has stolen a trick from shadow chancellor John McDonnell. But what was notable in his autumn statement was how little he actually broke with the policy of his predecessor. While he abandoned the failed attempt to run a budget surplus, in order to invest about 1 percent of GDP in infrastructure investments by 2020, the figures are extremely modest. It also comes with a continued commitment to public-sector austerity, contributing to the “humanitarian crisis” in the National Health Service.
The Stakes Are Clear
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
So what you're saying is that this is just your garden variety left wing?
I was quite certain it is - doesn't mean it isn't quite a bad set of policy prescriptions.
|
On January 24 2017 00:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Tax on robots: More information needed. Is there some sort of loophole which means that robots are taxed less than other machinery? No, his thesis is that robots destroy jobs but obviously don't contribute to our social system (no cotisations), so the proposed tax would be a way to compensate that.
32-hour working week: Seems to be a distinctively French context. More information needed. It's the next step in the reduction of working time after the 35h week. But he no longer really proposes 32 hours.
The right of foreigners to vote in local elections: In UK, commonwealth citizens can also vote in local elections. This is a promise from the PS since... 1981. Hollande promised it in 2012, then dropped it.
“Humanitarian visa” and redo of France a land of asylum: Not sure what this means. Bad grammar. I am guessing you google translated this. Basically visas for refugees instead of letting people come or die on overcrowded boats.
Consideration of the none of the above vote. If the none of the above vote is a majority vote, the election must be postponed: Not sure what this means. White ballots are not counted in the our current system.
Labor law repeal to provide additional protection to employees: Need french context. The labor law (loi Travail) is the bill which triggered months of protests and was imposed by the government using some constitutional but authoritarian method. It weakens the rights of workers. The left of the PS (plus anything left of that) criticized it and wants it to remove it. It was one of the causes of the internal divorce in the PS.
Help facilitate the takeover of SCOP companies by employees: No idea what an SCOP is. It's a worker cooperative, owned and self-managed by its workers.
Recognize burn-out as an occupational disease: Strange policy to have as surely such decisions cn only be made by a medical board. Yes, the point is not to bypass physicians, simply to recognize that burn-outs are caused by work. It has consequences for compensation, etc.
|
On January 24 2017 01:33 LegalLord wrote: So what you're saying is that this is just your garden variety left wing?
I was quite certain it is - doesn't mean it isn't quite a bad set of policy prescriptions. Doesn't really matter that much. On the left both Macron and Melenchon are more popular, although I am not immersed enough in French politics to know whether Hamon winning would steal Melenchon's thunder a bit. That said, you probably hate Melenchon's policy ideas even more, from everything I know about you.
But don't worry. Fillon will probably win the election anyway. Hollande has fucked it up far too much for the left to win anything.
|
On January 24 2017 01:33 LegalLord wrote: So what you're saying is that this is just your garden variety left wing?
I was quite certain it is - doesn't mean it isn't quite a bad set of policy prescriptions. Sorry, I was answering Velr.
On January 24 2017 00:24 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 00:12 Acrofales wrote:On January 24 2017 00:11 LegalLord wrote: I would say what I find more notable is what it doesn't include than what it does. This list of platform positions seems to hilariously miss the point of what people actually care about. What, in your opinion, do French people actually care about? Very vague question since there's a lot of them. My point, though, is that this platform had the willingness to explicate its thoughts about some of the very micro-issues like "dental care" (I remember the last time I voted for someone based on their opinion on dental care...) yet they completely fail to touch upon many of the most important issues - the economy as a whole, the EU (whether or not people like it, it's almost ubiquitous that Brexit and Trump are pretty big deals here), FP/military (Trump and his NATO remarks are important here), and so on. Also, "vote for none of the above" sounds hilarious. Yeah, let's let our government stall for a while and have another campaign season because people don't really like the candidates. Sounds like a real pragmatic way to get good candidates instead of endless deadlock. I mean, the stuff being proposed is pretty stupid, but it definitely is quite notable that the people don't seem to focus on macro-issues that one might think people actually care about. His positions on economy: growth isn't going to come back like it did in the previous decades; robots will destroy jobs; thus we must rethink work in our society, hence the universal income.
His position on EU: same blabla on social Europe that social democrats repeat for decades. Refuses free trade treaties with Canada/USA. Wants ecological investment on the European scale. Claims he wants to “end austerity” but doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would make Merkel bow.
From TV debates, he claims being in the NATO is “neutral” (he doesn't seem to care whether we're in or out). He wants an European defence.
White ballots are fairly marginal anyway, I doubt it would block a lot of elections.
|
|
|
|